You are here: / Judge’s Failure to Apply the “Prejudice versus Probative”...

Search Results

/ ,

Judge’s Failure to Apply the “Prejudice versus Probative” Balancing Test to Evidence of Uncharged Bad Acts and Crimes, Combined with the Judge’s Failure to Give the Jury Limiting Instructions About How Such Evidence is to Be Considered by Them, Required Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge never ruled on the admissibility of uncharged prior bad acts and crimes by applying the “prejudicial effect versus probative value” Molineux test, and the judge never gave limiting instructions to the jury about the limited applicability of such evidence.  The charged offense was assault by administering alcohol to the victim (defendant’s wife) without her consent.  The prior bad acts and crimes which were entered into evidence included nonconsensual sex, withholding medication and domestic violence:

To be sure, “[p]rior bad acts in domestic violence situations are more likely to be considered relevant and probative evidence because the aggression and bad acts are focused on one particular person, demonstrating the defendant’s intent, motive, identity and absence of mistake” … and, further, may be “relevant to provide background information concerning the context and history of [the] defendant’s relationship with the victim” … . That said, even assuming that all of the uncharged crimes/prior bad acts at issue here, which, as noted previously, included allegations of nonconsensual sex, domestic violence, bullying and the withholding of certain medications from the victim, fell within one or more of the recognized Molineux exceptions … and indeed constituted relevant and probative evidence, the record fails to reflect that County Court balanced the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect. More to the point, even further assuming that our review of the record disclosed evidence of County Court’s implicit finding in this regard …, the record nonetheless reveals that, despite an appropriate request by defense counsel during the course of the charge conference, no appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury … . The absence of such instructions clearly impacted the jury’s deliberations — as evidenced by the jury’s inquiry as to whether the coercion charge “encompass[ed] just the use of alcohol or . . . extend[ed] to unwilling sex. People v Elmy, 2014 NY Slip Op 03300, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/

Whether the Insurer Is Obligated to Indemnify the Driver Turns on Whether the Driver Acted Intentionally When His Vehicle Struck the Rear of Decedent’s Vehicle—-There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Incident Was an Accident or the Result of Intentional Conduct

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the striking of decedent’s car from behind was intentional or accidental.  If the rear driver acted intentionally, his insurer had no duty to indemnify the rear driver. The court explained the terms “accidental” and “intentional” in this context:

“In deciding whether a loss is the result of an accident, it must be determined, from the point of view of the insured, whether the loss was unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . We must look to the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action, but may also consider extrinsic facts … .

Insurable ” [a]ccidental results can flow from intentional acts’ ” … . On the other hand, “when the damages alleged in the [underlying] complaint are the intended result which flows directly and immediately from [the insured’s] intentional act, . . . there is no accident, and therefore, no coverage” … . “[M]ore than a causal connection between the intentional act and the resultant harm is required to prove that the harm was intended” … . The exclusion for an intentional injury, however, will apply where the injuries are ” inherent in the nature’ of the wrongful act”… . Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04011, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/ , ,

Fraud Upon the Court Must Be Demonstrated by Clear and Convincing Evidence/Striking of Pleadings and Entering Default Judgment Against Offending Party Appropriate Under the Facts

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the standard for demonstrating a party has committed fraud upon the court is “clear and convincing.”  Under the facts, the court determined that defendants' fraud upon the court had been demonstrated and that striking the pleadings and entering a default judgment against the defendants was appropriate:

We …conclude that in order to demonstrate fraud on the court, the non-offending party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the offending “party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action” … . A court must be persuaded that the fraudulent conduct, which may include proof of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and falsification of documents concerns “issues that are central to the truth-finding process” … . Essentially, fraud upon the court requires a showing that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense … . A finding of fraud on the court may warrant termination of the proceedings in the non-offending party's favor … . For “when a party lies to the court and [its] adversary intentionally, repeatedly, and about issues central to the truth-finding process, it can fairly be said that [the party] has forfeited [the] right to have [the] claim decided on the merits” … . Therefore, once a court concludes that clear and convincing evidence establishes fraud on the court, it may strike a pleading and enter a default judgment.

We caution that dismissal is an extreme remedy that “must be exercised with restraint and discretion” … . Dismissal is most appropriate in cases like this one, where the conduct is particularly egregious, characterized by lies and fabrications in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court and the nonoffending party; where the conduct is perpetrated repeatedly and wilfully, and established by clear and convincing evidence, such as the documentary and testimonial evidence found here. Dismissal is inappropriate where the fraud is not “central to the substantive issues in the case” …, or where the court is presented with “an isolated instance of perjury, standing alone, [which fails to] constitute a fraud upon the court” … . In such instances, the court may impose other remedies including awarding attorney fees …, awarding other reasonable costs incurred … , or precluding testimony … . In the rare case where a court finds that a party has committed fraud on the court warranting dismissal, the court should note why lesser sanctions would not suffice to correct the offending behavior … . CDR Creances SAS v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 03294, CtApp 5-8-14

 

/

Person Injured After Being Thrown from a Motorcycle Is an “Occupant” of the Motorcycle Within the Meaning of the Insurance Law and Is Therefore Not Eligible for First-Party No-Fault Benefits

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sconiers, determined a person injured after being thrown from a motorcycle was an “occupant” of the motorcycle within the meaning of the Insurance Law and therefore ineligible for first-party no-fault benefits:

Previously, motorcycle operators and passengers injured in motor vehicle accidents were generally entitled to first-party benefits under the no-fault law. Former section 672 (1) (a) of the Insurance Law provided that those entitled to first-party benefits under the no-fault scheme encompassed “persons, other than occupants of another motor vehicle.” That category included motorcyclists on a par with pedestrians … . The statute was amended in 1977 to exclude occupants of motorcycles from such benefits (see L 1977, ch 892, § 9), thereby terminating the treatment of motorcycle occupants “as pedestrians rather than motorists [who] enjoy the benefits of no-fault at no cost” … . The successor of the amended statute, Insurance Law § 5103 (a) (1), currently provides that, under a policy of insurance issued on an automobile, first-party benefits are available to “[p]ersons, other than occupants of another motor vehicle or a motorcycle” … . The exclusions in the Kemper and Farm and Family insurance policies of “any person while occupying a motorcycle” are consistent with Insurance Law § 5103 (a) (1) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). Boyson v Kwasowsky, 2015 NY Slip Op 03964, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/

Cell Phone In Possession of Inmate Met the Definition of “Dangerous Contraband” in the Context of a “Promoting Prison Contraband” Charge

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that a cell phone constituted “dangerous contraband” within the meaning of “promoting prison contraband in the first degree.”  The testimony of the supervising superintendent about the protections put in place concerning the recording and restrictions on inmate phone calls were sufficient to demonstrate the cell phone met the definition of “dangerous contraband:”

In this regard, the Court of Appeals has instructed that “the test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . Notably, “the distinction between contraband and dangerous contraband” does not turn upon “whether an item is legal or illegal outside of prison . . . [as] [i]t is obvious that an item, such as a razor, may be perfectly legal outside prison and yet constitute dangerous contraband when introduced into that unpredictable environment” … . Similarly, as our case law makes clear, the item in question need not be inherently dangerous in order to qualify as dangerous contraband. Indeed, although weapons are perhaps the most commonly recognized source of dangerous contraband in a prison setting … , courts have — applying the Finley test — reached the very same conclusion with respect to other items made, obtained or possessed by prison inmates, including illegal quantities of drugs …, a disposable Bic lighter …  and hand-drawn maps or knotted links of wire that could be used to facilitate an escape …. Although the majority in Finley did not expressly address this issue, Judge Pigott opined in his concurrence/dissent that, “[i]f the contraband at issue is not inherently dangerous . . . , the People must present specific, competent proof from which the trier of fact may infer that use of the contraband could potentially create a dangerous situation inside the facility” … . As a cell phone admittedly is not an inherently dangerous item, the question is whether the People adduced sufficient proof to establish the cell phone’s potential to be used in such a pernicious manner as to elevate it to the level of dangerous contraband. People v Green, 2014 NY Slip Op 03303, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/ ,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/ , ,

Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations Sufficiently Pled/Disclaimers and Disclosures Did Not Preclude Claim of Fraud

The First Department determined a cause of action for fraud against Merrill Lynch had been sufficiently pled.  The underlying agreement related to credit default obligations (CDO’s).  The court noted that an unjust enrichment cause of action is not viable when the lawsuit is based on a written agreement:

…[The] factual allegations provide sufficient details to inform the …defendants … of the alleged fraudulent conduct, namely that the CDO was secretly designed by an undisclosed hedge fund, Magnetar, which was secretly placing massive short bets against the very same deals it was sponsoring. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiff cannot establish the element of reasonable reliance (an element of both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment) as a result of the disclosures and disclaimers for the Auriga CDO. We cannot agree.

The offering circular states, “All or most of the Collateral Debt Securities Acquired by the Issuer . . . will be Acquired from a portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities selected by the Collateral Manager . . . .” If Magnetar rather than 250 Capital was doing the selecting, the statement in the offering circular was misleading. The identity of the person selecting the collateral was material: The offering circular says, “The performance of the portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities depends heavily on the skills of the Collateral Manager in analyzing and selecting the Collateral Debt Securities.” * * *

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the disclaimers and disclosures in the offering circulars preclude a claim of fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter, namely that the CDO’s collateral had been carefully selected by an independent collateral manager, in the interests of the success of the deal and for the benefit of Auriga’s long investors. Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 38 Ltd v Merrill Lynch …, 2014 NY Slip Op 03326, 1st Dept 5-8-14

Similar issues and result re: Citigroup in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick.  Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 3 Ltd v Citigroup Global Mkts Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03358, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

/

Intentional Conduct Cannot Be the Basis for a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

The Second Department determined a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot be based upon intentional conduct.  Plaintiff alleged he was attacked with a hammer by the defendant:

A cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which no longer requires physical injury as a necessary element, “generally must be premised upon the breach of a duty owed to [the] plaintiff which either unreasonably endangers the plaintiff’s physical safety, or causes the plaintiff to fear for his or her own safety” … . “Such a claim must fail, where, as here, no allegations of negligence appear in the pleadings'” … . Here the plaintiff’s allegations in the verified complaint that the defendant “deliberately and violently” attacked him with a hammer, while using racial and ethnic slurs, are premised on intentional conduct and not negligence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. Santana v Leith, 2014 NY Slip Op 03251, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

/

General Permit System by Which Smaller Communities Obtain Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Does Not Violate Federal or State Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a three-judge partial dissent, determined that the system by which smaller municipalities can obtain authorization for stormwater discharge without a public hearing did not violate federal or state law. The court's own overview of this very complex opinion provides the best summary:

Runoff from rain and snow melt courses over roofs, roads, driveways and other surfaces, picking up pollutants along the way. It then passes through municipal storm sewer systems into rivers and lakes, adding the pollutants accumulated during its journey to those bodies of water. These municipal storm sewer systems thus differ from other entities that discharge effluents into our State's surface waters (for example, industrial or commercial facilities and sewage treatment plants) in three major ways: precipitation is naturally occurring, intermittent and variable and cannot be stopped; although municipalities operate sewer systems, stormwater contamination results from the often unforeseen or unpredictable choices of individual residents and businesses (for example, to let litter pile up or to use certain lawn fertilizers), as well as decisions made long ago about the design of roads, parking lots and buildings; and because stormwater runoff flows into surface waters through tens of thousands of individual outfalls, each locality's contribution to the pollution of a particular river or lake is difficult to ascertain or allocate through numeric limitations.

Federal and state law prohibit discharges of stormwater from New York's municipal separate storm sewer systems in urbanized areas (referred to as MS4s) without authorization under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. As an alternative to an individual SPDES permit, municipal separate storm sewer systems that serve a population under 100,000 (or small MS4s) may seek to discharge stormwater under a SPDES general permit. The 2010 General Permit — the subject of this lawsuit — requires these municipal systems to develop, document and implement a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) in compliance with detailed specifications developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC or the Department) to limit the introduction of pollutants into stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. To obtain initial coverage (i.e., authorization to discharge) under the terms of the 2010 General Permit, small MS4s must first submit a complete and accurate notice of intention (NOI) to DEC.

After the 2010 General Permit took effect on May 1st of that year, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and seven other environmental advocacy groups (collectively, NRDC) brought this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action against DEC to challenge certain aspects of the 2010 General Permit. NRDC claims generally that by allowing small MS4s to gain coverage under the 2010 General Permit based upon an NOI reviewed only for completeness and not subject to an opportunity for a public hearing, DEC has created an “impermissible self-regulatory system” that fails to force local governments to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable — the statutory standard — and violates federal and state law [FN2]. Equating NOIs with applications for individual SPDES permits, Supreme Court granted partial relief to NRDC (35 Misc 3d 652 [Sup Ct Westchester County 2012]). The Appellate Division, as relevant here, rejected NRDC's federal and state law challenges to the 2010 General Permit (120 AD3d 1235 [2d Dept 2014]). We granted NRDC leave to appeal (23 NY3d 901 [2014]), and now affirm. Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 03766, CtApp 5-7-15

 

/ ,

There Is No Blanket Prohibition Against Relying on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in a Medical Malpractice Case

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the defendant in a medical malpractice case, the Third Department noted that plaintiff is not precluded from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a medical malpractice action.  Here it is was alleged the improper insertion of an IV damaged a nerve: “While the proof adduced at trial ultimately may be insufficient to establish the required elements of res ipsa loquitur …, thereby rendering the submission of such a charge to the jury unwarranted …, there is no blanket prohibition upon invoking this doctrine in the context of a medical malpractice action … .  Weeks v St. Peter’s Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 03909, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy